The God Delusion / Root of All Evil - Richard Dawkins

[Dexter Sinister]

My point was that Jesus rejected the offer of power. By definition, Christianity would do the same, and so the term "churches" or the Islamic "Christendom" is correct, not "Christianity", for groups who exert political or democratic power.

Rather a strained and artificial quibble over semantics, I think. I presume you would then argue that it was the Christian Church, or Christendom, not Christianity, that was responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the destruction of so many aboriginal societies in the Americas, and so forth? What is Christianity then, if it's not its congregations, its priests and pastors, its bishops and cardinals, all the people who claim to be Christian and to do things in the name of Christianity? Without the people, it's just an idea without expression or substance, and only by defining it that way can you claim that Christianity rejects secular power. Its people certainly haven't; it wasn't that long ago in most of the so-called Christian world that the church and the state were largely indistinguishable.

 

[John Welch]

"Is there any reason to believe that religious institutionalization is not a political force, or will not be turned to political purposes? Can religions institutionalism and the state truly be separated?"
AJ,
Jesus said his followers are not of the world just as himself is not of the world._John 17.14 to end of chapter. That included rejecting all the kingdoms , offered to be given to Jesus._ Matt. 4.8-10, such as Rome etc.
Dexter,
Yes, the Churches have become part of the world, in opposition to Jesus. When foreign companies make counterfeit brand-name products, it is crime and not accepted by the authentic brand company.
Spam scams look authentic, in order to be effective. They are hostile and defraud the poor suckers. And as fraudulent companies can get nasty, so Jesus said he and his followers would be hated by the world._John15.18-25. Thus he said Christianity would exist with a few people on the narrow way, distinct from Churches on the broad way.
John

 

[Dexter Sinister]

So how many real Christians do you figure there might be in the world, according to your understanding of Christianity? And do you count yourself among them?

More to the point I think, though, how can the Churches do any good in this world if they're not of this world? Or is that not what they're supposed to do? I confess I completely fail to comprehend what seems to be your view of Christianity. I've examined Christianity long and hard in the last 30 years, and your view of it--or at least what I interpret to be your view of it from what you've posted here--is one I've never encountered before.

 

[John Welch]

Dexter and all,
This may be the point where it needs one-on-one. Please email : sjswelch@yahoo.com.au
I only dropped into this forum when following a post about the Welsh dragon flag, in History section.
Christ's followers would be Christ"ish" , meaning they copy him, not going beyond that or short of it, within human ability. So Jesus, Paul, John, probably James etc. were arrested for doing no more and no less than what you know they did - talking. The world system hates what they talk about.
John

 

[SVMc]

Attempt to drag thread back on topic #2:

AJ & John: I respect your passion and enthusiasm to discuss the finer points of Christian scripture, and that according to your readings / interpretations / understanding of that scripture there can be a debate of:
- Does Christianity teach a good way of life
- Can the ethics of Christianity be put into good governance
- Should Christians be involved in politics from a Christian standpoint
- Did Jesus teach Christians to be involved in politics.
These are all very interesting and debatable points. Which should have their own discussion. They are not the topic of this thread, and are not even on point. I would be happy to engage in any of these discussions in a thought provoking way, but not in the context of this discussion.

AJ: I believe that government and religion are a marriage.

Great, wonderful, that's your choice, there are a lot of people who agree with that choice, including Dawkins... although he thinks of it in a different way. Dawkins point is that as long as religions and government are a marriage then religion is a corrosive force in societies, such that it will co-opt government and create conflict.

I'm not debating that. This thread isn't about that.

I'm trying to look at the basic premise first. Is it fundamental to religion that where there is social organization (government) that religion must due to it's moral / ethical components interject a claim on moral authority into the wider social organization in which it exists.

If you believe that government and religion are a marriage you are ahead of the curve on this one and please feel free to start a new thread discussion the merits / drawbacks of government and religion being married.

John: My point was that Jesus rejected the offer of power. By definition, Christianity would do the same, and so the term "churches" or the Islamic "Christendom" is correct, not "Christianity", for groups who exert political or democratic power.

Good point, well taken, I'm taking this as an issue over the vocabulary used. That your argument would be that Christianity is not the reason the Christian Church or Christendom has become so politically involved. And, I can respect the fact that there is a view that would endorse that it is not the actual religion per-say that caused the institutionalism (i.e. Jesus did not go forth to his followers and say, take over government in my name, vote in blocks and make war on other nations that believe other than we do in my name). Fair enough.

There are probably many Christians who for various reason practice their faith without extending their faith into their government.

The fact remains though that Christianity as a religion rightly or wrongly according to it's own scriptures has gained incredible mobility and critical mass and has produced the Christian Church as a massive institution probably the largest in the world and Christendom has become a political force bar none in the past century.

So if we are asking if it is possible for religion to exist in a sphere unto itself, either in the mind of the person, or the mind of the collective, the Christian Church / Christendom are resounding examples of "unlikely". I can go to greater lengths to try to use the names of the institutions, but I think that comes down to symantics as Christianity is an example of populist, critical mass religion that has again rightly or wrongly produced institutionalism. The debate on if this was an intended result of the Christian way, is another debate entirely.

 

[SVMc]

Dexter: I've been using the term 'institutionalized religion' to mean one with an authoritatively established body of belief, doctrine, and practice, recognized individuals entitled to authoritatively define and interpret them, and some sort of established hierarchy that extends beyond individual congregations or covens or whatever you want to call them. I'm inclined to think that the tipping point between harmless little groups of people doing whatever they feel is appropriate for themselves, which is at least approximately the current status of all the neo-pagan groups I know anything about and many other groups like the Amish and the Quakers, and turning into a political action group of some sort, lies in two places: the group getting large enough that it begins to have secular interests (it owns property, for instance), and its begining to think that it's entitled to push (I was going to write 'inflict' at first) its views on others. That latter point I think is often related to powerful and charismatic individuals rising within the group; people like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox come to mind.

I agree this is the point that we've reached. I agree with your definition of institutionalism and that is the context in which I've been using it. I've been intertwining it with the word "indoctrination" to refer to the active interpretation of scriptures by the authorities of the institution who then impart (enforce?) the interpretation upon the followers.

Now in populist democracies I'm not sure that the institution owning property is necessary, although it likely follows closely on gaining critical mass. For instance if enough Wiccan's come together and begin to buy up land as individual property holders in place X, then the Wiccan church does not have property holdings, but the Wiccan people do. It is logical then that as critical mass accumulates in a given location that then that group can be politically influential simply by voting as a bloc on everything from municipal to federal matters. Logically one would assume that as a group grows that they would want a communal gathering place and would begin to purchase property as a group in the name of the organization as that has been the historical pattern, but it may not be given.

The second one I think is the harder one to wrestle with. If a group does gain the critical mass, to influence can they choose not to use it? (Choose not to push / inflict?). It seems logical that in most cases this would not happen, and the catalyst would have to be when the group felt at odds with the secular status quo.

The charismatic personalities here sure make it easier to push here... but it still does not determine if the followers can or would be compelled to choose not to.

I'm trying to think of where to go for a thought experiment here, atheism may be the logical choice, but then it's almost impossible and probably impractical to work with the idea of defining religious morality motives with a non-religious status.

So I'm off my rocker for the moment. Still thinking about it though.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

If a group does gain the critical mass, to influence can they choose not to use it? (Choose not to push / inflict?). It seems logical that in most cases this would not happen, and the catalyst would have to be when the group felt at odds with the secular status quo.

Just a quick thought here, I'm in the middle of a very busy Sunday. Certainly a group can choose not to use its ability to influence the secular world, but my admittedly anecdotal observation is that they rarely, if ever, make that choice. I know of no case where a religious group with any secular power has not used it to the detriment of others who don't follow its precepts.

 

[look3467]

I'm trying to look at the basic premise first. Is it fundamental to religion that where there is social organization (government) that religion must due to it's moral / ethical components interject a claim on moral authority into the wider social organization in which it exists.>>> SVMc

The very existence of life has in its fabric an element a spiritual nature.
This nature throughout the history of mankind has been demonstrated by many a variety of gods incorporate into their lives.

In the name of these gods, wars have ensued, pitting one god against another as if these gods had the same human desires, mainly greed.

So the urge to promote one’s religion on others is a natural phenomenon.

What can we expect out of humanity, without a godly influence?

I can answer that question with one verse from the bible but I will let that ride for now.

And Thanks SVMc for your gentleman like attitude towards us less-articulate response.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

What can we expect out of humanity, without a godly influence?

Leaving aside the question of whether any god even exists or not (not really relevant to this thread), I think you've got that backwards. That's what we can expect out of humanity when it *does* have a godly influence, or at least believes it does; that's mostly what this discussion's about.

 

[look3467]

Leaving aside the question of whether any god even exists or not (not really relevant to this thread), I think you've got that backwards. That's what we can expect out of humanity when it *does* have a godly influence, or at least believes it does; that's mostly what this discussion's about.

What can we expect if there is no godly influence? Can you give me an idea what that would be like?

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

What can we expect if there is no godly influence? Can you give me an idea what that would be like?

Probably not, except in very general terms: I think the planet would be a much more peaceable and reasonable place without the God delusion. And I'll be perfectly clear about this: I agree completely with Dawkins on that point, it *is* a delusion. Atheists don't generally band together to do things in the name of atheism, they operate as individuals in that context. Individual atheists have certainly done some horrible things--Stalin comes to mind--but like Stalin, it's rarely atheism as such that drives them--in fact I know of no case where it was--it's some ideology, or megalomania, or something like that; they're only incidentally atheists. And just in case it comes up (it usually does eventually in such discussions), Hitler was not an atheist. It's perfectly clear in Mein Kampf that he considered the extermination of Jews to be a task the Creator would look favourably upon, and that he was an agent of God's will in that task.

 

[John Welch]

Then the delusion of God is no different from any ideology which motivates atheists. If human natural behaviour produces the same political and self-centered organisations ,whether from Church-basis or not, then Churches are not the issue. The only issue would be whether Churches are false to their claim.
If a Church group is a majority in democracy, they are equal to any power group with the constitutional right to rule the minority, when enough people choose to join and be that majority. When they promote war, they are equal to any political ideology. China has no real ideology today and may be the closest to genuine atheist government. They behave politically just as Buddhist Thailand, Catholic Spain or Islamic Iran, or all governments. Churches are equal to atheists, but not to Christianity.
John

 

[look3467]

It seems to me that there are no answers with man alone.
If mankind new its origin apart from God, than perhaps there might be some answers.
But, there is no answer to the origin except for theories, but no concrete evidence.

There is however, an answer to our origin on Gods side, but must be accepted in faith. Apart from that, there is...........

If we used numbers to paint a picture, heres what I think it would look like: 1=man, 2=women, 3=God and 4=the world.
Leave number 3 out, and all you have is mankind and his world.
Number 3 is the invisible agent, known as the Holy Spirit.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[John Welch]

AJ,
You are all heart, big-hearted with your heart in the right place, and pumping. Was the Holy Spirit really there in the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of heretics and Catholic-Protestant wars? Did the Spanish priests have more heart than the Aztec sacred-heart clergy? Do Japanese feel grateful for the sun-brilliant atom bombs from faithful Church-men and women? Will Russian Orthodox nukes be used before Anglican or French Catholic nukes? Is that nice for our kids?
chimera

 

[look3467]

AJ,
You are all heart, big-hearted with your heart in the right place, and pumping. Did the Spanish priests have more heart than the Aztec sacred-heart clergy? Do Japanese feel grateful for the sun-brilliant atom bombs from faithful Church-men and women? Will Russian Orthodox nukes be used before Anglican or French Catholic nukes? Is that nice for our kids?
chimera

Was the Holy Spirit really there in the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of heretics and Catholic-Protestant wars?>>>John

It seems to me that God is getting all the blame for mankind’s evil behaviors. As if man is angry at God?
He very well has a right to do so. After all, God placed us in this hell whole of pain, suffering and evil manifestations.
See here in this verse: Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

But when we know to understand Gods love through His eyes and not ours, we know to love as He loves.
On the second part of that verse it say, “who hath subjected the same in hope”.

God not only placed us here to experience life, but to learn obedience through the experience and give us hope of never being lost because of our behavior.

A Spirit filled soul, is a soul that abides in the love of God, for the spirit of God, (Holy Spirit) is in us to guide and direct us in the right path.

1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Teach your kids the love of God by example and they will work to make it a better world.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Then the delusion of God is no different from any ideology which motivates atheists.

Insofar as atheism is not relevant to the motive, yes. That sentence would be better without the last three words. But that's not what SVMc started this thread to talk about. The point, at least from my perspective, and Dawkins' if I've understood him correctly, and I think I have, is that the God delusion is a uniquely pernicious and destructive motive because of the absolute certainty of moral rightness it gives its followers, the pervasive and quite unjustified respect claimed for anything with the label 'religious belief,' and the assumption by many believers that they are therefore entitled to force their views on others, because of course they're absolutely correct. When people believe they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, they do horrible things to each other, and as far as I can tell from my reading of history, they do it every time. That's what The Holocaust was about, what Communism was about--as it was implemented, not as Marx and Engels envisaged it--what the Armenian genocide was about, what every instance of 'ethnic cleansing' is about, what Al-Qaeda is about, what 9/11 was about, what Islamic suicide bombers are about, what all the strife and terror in the Middle East is about... It's people thinking that they're absolutely right and anyone who disagrees with them is therefore absolutely wrong and thus expendable.

The U.S. Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg once made a remark to the effect that normally, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things, but to get good people to do evil things takes religion. Note that that doesn't suggest religion is intrinsically evil, obviously it's not, as our good Father sanctus, and AJ, and karrie, and selfactivated, among many others, have amply demonstrated here. I think what he meant was that religious belief is too easily perverted to evil ends. If all believers were like sanctus and AJ and karrie and selfactivated and the others, there wouldn't be a problem.

But they're not, so there is.

 

[El Barto]

Dexter,just want to add what came to mind. Evil is a religious concept, and religion is a tool for the intolerance and the fearful. Man in general don't like to be contradicted.Hope this adds to your arguement.

 

[Libra Girl]

That's what The Holocaust was about, what Communism was about--as it was implemented, not as Marx and Engels envisaged it--what the Armenian genocide was about, what every instance of 'ethnic cleansing' is about, what Al-Qaeda is about, what 9/11 was about, what Islamic suicide bombers are about, what all the strife and terror in the Middle East is about... It's people thinking that they're absolutely right and anyone who disagrees with them is therefore absolutely wrong and thus expendable.

Excellent post.

 

[John Welch]

AJ,
I'm not angry at God, but at the idea of attaching Him or His spirit to demonic Church actions.
Dexter,
Yes agree. You mentioned communism and nazis equally. If they have that dogmatic rightness and zeal to destroy the damned, then churches are no more and no less dangerous. Is the swastika cross so different in its significance from the crucifix symbol, and the hammer-sickle sign? Mao Tse Tung had a red book of absolute compulsive truth, causing massacres. For ancient, barbarian Europeans, the gods gave authority to the chiefs, and thus some Roman Caesars were deified, like pharaohs.
The dangerous part of a car is the nut behind the wheel.
John

 

[El Barto]

Probably the only loose nut in the mechanics of a car .....lol